Monday, March 2, 2009

Responding to Sami Zaatari: A Case Study in Misinterpretation

This article is mostly a response to Sami Zaatari, but there is a universal learning point at the end. If you'd like to skip to it, now's the time :-)


A few weeks ago, I posted an article titled "Sharia in Practice: Letting Muslim Girls Burn for Lack of Modesty". The article highlights the 2002 Mecca school fire in which at least 15 girls died. The cause of their deaths? Mutaween, or the Sharia Police, would not let the girls out of the burning school, nor would they let rescuers in, because the girls were not dressed modestly enough.

Aside from quoting Time magazine, that was the entirety of my post. I made no claim that burning girls for lack of modesty is enjoined on Muslims through Sharia. Not once did I say Muhammad taught this, that the Quran teaches this, or that any school of Islamic thought teaches this.

Sami Zaatari, the Muslim apologist who runs the site muslim-responses.com, has published an online response to this article. In his usual form, he took my words and interpreted them to mean whatever he wanted. In response to my article, he has said:

So here is a challenge for Nabeel:

-Bring a SINGLE Quranic verse, or authentic Hadith that says Muslims should burn immodest women

In fact I will save Nabeel some time, no such text exists, there is no such Islamic ruling, Nabeel is simply being ignorant, and is simply spreading false propaganda, simple as that.

Let us examine four problems with Sami's response:

Problem Number 1 - Did I ever claim that according to Sharia, a Muslim should burn immodest women? No! Nowhere in my article did I claim this. My article was not titled "Sharia law states women should burn for immodesty". It was "Sharia in practice: Letting Muslim girls burn for lack of modesty". Sami grossly misinterpreted my words.

As anyone with basic English interpretation skills and rudimentary honesty would conclude from the title alone, the article was not about how Sharia should be practiced, but rather Sharia in practice, and how it has resulted in the immolation of young girls. This is an undeniable fact, as undeniable as the fact that the Saudi government forgave the mutaween for their decision to let the girls die.

Problem Number 2 - Sami is wrong with an implicit fact as well. He has equated A: "letting girls burn for immodesty" to B: "burning girls for immodesty". A is a passive act, but B is a choice to kill. A and B are thus very different from each other, with B being a much worse crime. Sami claims that I declared B to be allowed in Sharia. This is an even more preposterous interpretation than problem number 1! As I said above, I was not making any statements regarding the normative application of Sharia, but beyond this, my claim was that the mutaween are guilty of A, not B! Of course, even this confusion could have been avoided if Sami had simply interpreted the title of the article accurately.

Problem Number 3 - Sami then went on to call me ignorant. Apart from being judgmental, Sami is simply wrong again. I ignored no aspect of my article, and made no uninvestigated claim.

Problem Number 4 - Finally, Sami states that I am simply spreading false propaganda. How can this be the case, when my whole article simply consisted of reporting an event which even Time Magazine reports? This is a horrible attempt at taking the focus off of the practice of Islam.

Learning Point

So what have we seen today? Sami interprets words the way he wants, blames his preposterous interpretations on the writer, and then accuses the writer of being ignorant and perpetuating lies!

The fact is, this is not a solitary occurrence. This is the modus operandi for many Muslims and their arguments. Many of the arguments against Christian apologists would easily be resolved if Muslims simply bothered to interpret the Christians accurately. If intentional, this can only be a distraction tactic; it serves no purpose in approaching the truth, and it simply confuses the readers who might be less than fully engaged. In the future, let's keep our eyes open for this method of argumentation and let's call it out for what it is: either poor interpretation skills or sheer distraction.

77 comments:

ubiquitouserendipity said...

i've come to expect no less from ANY mohammedan. sami personalized a statement i made, though quite general, to specifically implicate his mother,,, i'm guessing so that he could play the victim.

you do a great job nabeel. both you and david, and the many others who frequent this board.

fernando is my favorite though, because his insight and humor, coupled with his fractured english and spelling (not a condemnation in any way, if i were to try spanish it would be worse, and my grandparents came from mexico), is sometimes so ironic, and GENERALLY over the heads of his respondents.

G d bless you all who are committed to preaching the Word in love to these lost souls. i don't know what my life would be like had not Jesus come to me through another committed soul such as yourselves.

Jesus is Lord, everything else is just window dressing. serendipitously your

Nabeel Qureshi said...

US,

Thanks for the encouragement! It is great to get feedback of any sort. I really appreciate Fernando, too. I'm glad he's on our site, and that he's on our side!

Perhaps some day you'd like to share your story with us? Either way, may the Lord Jesus bless you richly. Yours in Christ,
-Nabeel

David Wood said...

I think the problem is that Islam is so utterly rule-based, Muslims have no clue what to do unless they have a specific rule telling them what to do.

So here's what happens. Muslims have a rule as part of Sharia: "Let no immodestly dressed women walk around in public."

Then there's a fire. The Muslim Sharia police ask themselves: "What are we to do? If we let these girls escape from the fire, we will be allowing immodestly dressed women to walk around in public. We will therefore be violating Sharia! We can't do this! What's more important, Sharia or the lives of a few girls? Clearly, Sharia."

Thus, girls die. Sharia in practice.

Taylor said...

Muhammad too gave no precaution when the lives of women were in danger. In fact, he supported an attack against pagans (a practice of sharia) at the price of the women's deaths.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."

Thus there is a similarity between the actions of the Sharia police and Muhammad. For both, it was more important to uphold sharia than to preserve innocent lives.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Taylor--

I would say in the case of the pagan women, it's more likely that Muhammad didn't see them as innocent, not that he didn't care about innocent women.

But thanks for the heads up on that hadith - I hadn't read it before.

Stephanie said...

Nabeel-

There is no doubt that Sami Zaatari crudely misquoted the entirety of your post. Hopefully his readers will do a little research themselves and take a look at the original article.

It's funny, because as I was reading your post, the single thought running through my mind was "Isn't the mantra of Islam to misinterpret just about everything that Christians and Jews say?" Because, honestly--despite all the evidence we provide for our believing in a SINGLE God but with a Triune nature (and since God is the omnipotent creator of the universe, who's to say He can't have three natures and still be whole? His understanding certainly exceeds our own), most Muslims continue to refer to Christians as polytheists. At the hand of some so-called Muslim apologists, harmless verses of the Bible are made out to support homosexuality, gambling, drinking, etc., despite blatant verses in the Bible outwardly forbidding immoral acts. Not all Christians are perfect, of course, but those who are respectable will openly admit their shortcomings. We're all human, and we're all going to make mistakes at some point. We need to learn to swallow our pride when we are wrong (I speak for myself when I say this).

Anyways, you did a great and thorough job in refuting the fallacious claims that were made in rebuttal.

God bless,
Stephanie

Bfoali said...

I agree with you Nabeel. I mean this blog is called Answering MUSLIMS not ISLAM. You did not claim it was Islamic (Sami's Article Prooves it as well), but its just the action of the ''Islamic'' Goverment. Thank you Nabeel for making the statement that your post was not for attacking Islam because this is NOT an Islamic action, but the action of so called Muslims.
So in summary. Nabeel Never said this was Islamic. Why? Well because it is not Islamic.

Nakdimon said...

I have to give Sami some credit though. He has shaken off his cocky and insulting style. I like his writings much more, stylistically speaking. The substance, however, remains as wanting as before.


Nakdimon

Fernando said...

misinterpret = muslim core apology and theologie... Shamefull...

Nakdimon said...

OMG PEOPLE! Look at this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B18m-jjIeYM&NR=1

especially pay attention to the footage at somewhat 1:05 into the video. Cold blooded execution!

How deluded are those that defend Hamas! Those guys aren't worth shedding a tear for!

Osama Abdallah said...

All,

It is important to know that, despite what belief the individual has, that his upbringing and level of education do play a vital role in his actions.


In the case of the guards (mutaween), there were simply ignorants, because in Islam we have a NOBLE QURAN RULE THAT SAYS: "The unlawful is permitted in exceptional cases." This is where you'd be allowed to eat pork if you're starving to death and there is only a pig to eat.

So yes, the girls should've been rescured! The guards were too ignorant and ridiculous. Like brother BFOALI said, it's the Muslims, not Islam.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Nabeel,

The Prophet, peace be upon him, clearly forbade:

1- The cutting of trees.

2- Killing of children.

3- Women and men who are not carrying weapons.

4- Any soldier who drops his weapon.


Furthermore, Allah Almighty Said regarding the captives:

"They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day Whose evil flies far and wide. And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive -- (Saying), 'We feed you For the sake of Allah alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.' (The Noble Quran, 76:7-9)"

In the case of the night raid, it was an exceptional case, and the Prophet NEVER GAVE ANY ORDER TO SLAUGHTER ANY INNOCENT PERONS. Instead, he said that we won't let the case of innocents getting harmed in the process stop this important raid. But Muslims, try to to not kill the innocents as much as you can. The Prophet ordered them this.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

Ousama... glade to see you back here... I hoppe thise time you'll behave in a more adultt and honeste fashion...

Non the less, bie presenting to us all the liste you presented I habe to say I alreadie habe a doubt... you say:

«The Prophet (...) forbade:

3- Women and men who are not carrying weapons.

4- Any soldier who drops his weapon»
...

so, in your own wordes Muhammad allows onlie Women and men who are carrying weapons, and the soldiers who dont drop his weapons... I would say this is an example of TRUE from your side, Ousama, but also an example of how DREDFULL is the religion inspired bie the wors pd Muhammad...

But once again: glade to see you backe here... our prayiers were always with you since you're a person loved by Jesus, our God...

Osama Abdallah said...

Fernando,

You said: "Ousama, but also an example of how DREDFULL is the religion inspired bie the wors pd Muhammad..."

What is so dreadful about Islam? The laws of war are clear in Islam, and mistreatment of captives is forbidden in Islam as I have demonstrated.

You said: "wors pd Muhammad..." What does pd stand for? Pedophile? If so, how is he a pedophile to you? Because he married a 9-year old? And did pedophelia exist back then? Didn't everyone, even in the Bible, marry young girls as young as 9 years old? Isn't Mary believed to have been in a very similar age when she married Joseph? 11-14 YEARS OLD we are old.

Furthermore, what makes Muhammad the worst pedophile to you, when we find this in the Bible:

"They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man........Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:7,17-18)"

How is Moses also not a pedophile, and even a worse one than Muhammad, to you, if you weren't a liar, even to yourself?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Correction...

liar = lying

If you weren't lying, even to yourself?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Fernando,

Temporarily accepting, for the sake of argument, that Muhammad was a pedophile, then based on what objective ground are you rejecting that the Bible has FAR WORSE PEDOPHILES that were APPROVED BY GOD ALMIGHTY, in it than Islam?

Please explain this to us if, again, you are not lying, even to yourself?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Osama--

Calm down. I think he was trying to say "words of muhammad", but let him clarify before jumping off the handle.

In addition, what Fernando was saying was that you said this:

"The Prophet forbade: women and men who are not carrying weapons, and any soldier who drops his weapon."

I think you accidentally left some words out. But instead of flying off my rocker and posting three posts, I'm going to give you the opportunity to clarify your words.

-Nabeel

Osama Abdallah said...

You know Fernando,

Christians like you, who use this type of reasoning against Muslims, are what creates conflicts and bitter feelings towards each others.

You boldly attack Islam on the most ridiculous and laughable things when one compares them in your scriptures, and you want us to accept your arguments?

That is why I told David Wood in the other post about the "dead donkey" that I AM ONLY A MUSLIM BECAUSE OF THE SCIENTIFIC MIRACLES! You won't take me out of Islam with these ridiculous arguments that only show how ridiculous you are Fernando for being too obviously self-contradicting and in double standards and hypocrisy. You could only take me out of Islam if you disprove Its Scientific Miracles and show that they are false. Otherwise, it's a never-ending "your religion is this... and no no no no YOUR religion is this" nonsense.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernando said...

Ousama... whie are you alreadie twisting mie words... I saide the religon inspired bie Muhammad is DREDFULL due to your own words, which I repeatt here, once again:

«The Prophet (...) forbade:

3- Women and men who are not carrying weapons.

4- Any soldier who drops his weapon»
...

A religon inspired bie someone who sais that he allows onlie Women and men who are carrying weapons, and the soldiers who dont drop his weapons is clearlie DREDFULL... in all cases and all circunstances...

Who started talking about pedhophilia? pb was an honest mistake... please beleave me... it was a mistake... I intended to write of... something like what who did...

but yes... since you spoke of it, due to your own religious sources Huhammad was, bie our modern and human standards, an phedophile... even not bie our modern and human standars it's a crime to marry someone as young of 6 and consume a marriage with a girl as young as 9... at that age no girle has a body, or a mind, enough developed to habe sex...

And where in the Bible or any christian religious Book similar to muslims' hadith (used to interpret the qur'an...) does it say Mary was between 11 and 14?

But thene again... eben admiting that Mary was between 11-14 (where girls are, in 90% pubescent), that was not the case with ladie Ayesha (girls of 9 are almost 100% pre-pubescent...)...

More... the life of Mary and Joseph is not teh paradigem to the life of Christians as it's the case of Muhammads...

About your quote of Numbers 31:7,17-18:

1) amputating some verses you try to implie that it was YHWH who spoke the latter words... it was not... it was Moses... and he did note justified them by the will og YHWH... and once again: Moses is not the paradigm to Christians who see in Jesus the New Moses...

More... this is a descriptive and historical passage, not, as you well knowe, a juridical or prescreptive one... it's not an example neither to Christians, nor to jews...

Yes... Moses ordered the kill of "zakar ba-ttap"... young boys (nott exactly children -- one is a young boy until he becames a youbg male adult --... and clearly note innocent as you, whith some malicious intencion I recon, interpolled in the text...)...

But nowhere Numbers 31:7,18 reveals anything of pedophilic attitude... "ha-ttap Bannashim" means young girls -- and one is a young girl until he becames a youbg adult woman --... not, as you, now, truly admits, not interpolling wordes eben when the word, ttap, is the same as before...

But eben if this was not the case (but it is...) nowhere in Numbers 31:7,18 is saide (as you want to implye by your words...)

a) they killed them;
b) or eben they raped them...

its is said that they could take the girls who were not the cause of infidility towards YHWH (Numbers 31,16) by theire possetion as, one can cleraly read bie the words "asher hahayu": take theires life as yours... this is: respect them as you respect your lifes...

Ousama... I'm bery glad to see you back... you allways present a great opportunities not onli to show how muslim's knoledge of the Bible is so weak, and muslims apologie is so decadent...

and I was not, by any means, lying to no one... you, on the other palm-hand, by your amputation and insertion of words, were

Butt once again: glad to see you here again...

Osama Abdallah said...

Nabeel,

It looks like we were typing our posts at the same time.

Thanks for the clarification. As to me clarifying my post to you, for points #3 and #4, I meant to say: "Killing....".

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

Ousama said to Doctor Nabeel: «As to me clarifying my post to you, for points #3 and #4, I meant to say: "Killing....".»

Ousama... Ousama... I was already willinhg an post to gibe my thanks to your explanation, but since your explanation is onlie to Doctor Nabeel, I depreend to all the rest off us you still want to imply that

«The Prophet (...) forbade:

3- Women and men who are not carrying weapons.

4- Any soldier who drops his weapon»
...

It's sad your duplicitie... Tomorrow I'll bee back to se iff you're more clear...

Once again: whie all are with our hearts with you...

Stephanie said...

Mr. Abdallah,

The Bible does not promote pedophilia. I implore you to supply specific verses to back up your statement. And before you do post these supposed verses, please be sure to understand the context of the passages. (i.e., the word "navel" does not equal the term referring to female genitalia. Consulting the original language of the Bible and specific definitions/contexts of those words will be of great help.)

Also, don't forget to consider the social norms of that time--I think it's around the age of 13 that girls were married off, but don't quote me on that. The Bible may make mention of this, but it does not condone it. Just like a section of a paper being dedicated to the victims of sexual assault or rape doesn't support the idea of sexual assault or rape. It reports it. Anyways I'm curious to hear your side.

Thanks and God bless,
Stephanie

Osama Abdallah said...

Mrs. Stephanie,

I first of all think that it is great to have a nice an polite female, such as yourself, on this board. It eases the tensions that quickly build up LOL :-). Now please don't get me wrong here. I am married and I dearly love my wife. She's sacrificed a lot for me and my weird world :-).

Now, my pedophelia point was in response to what I though was Fernando's point. I already mentioned the Biblical verses in my previous post, so no need to repost it here again.

Here is what bothers me from many Christians, Stephanie:

1- Like you, I am not for marrying young girls. Today, it is impractical. I need a woman who is mature, not a kid whom I need to raise and raise myself with her.

2- But why do you have this attitude about if something is not in the Bible, then we have the right to mock it and attack others with it?


I mean, just because you don't have a specific passage in the Bible that say: such and such Prophet married a 9-year old girl, doesn't mean that you can use it against the Muslims and declare their Prophet to be a pedophile, especially when rape of virgin girls and the slaughter of non-virgin girls and also boys and men happened on a large scale to 100s of thousands of people in the Bible. And yes, Stephanie, these actions were condoned by GOD Almighty.

Simply put: These types of arguments drive away Muslims from you, and it only creates bitter feelings between us. You want me to accept and declare that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a pedophile, while I can find worse Prophets than him in the Bible.

It's just not acceptable.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

addition...

You want me to accept and declare that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a pedophile, while I can find worse Prophets than him in the Bible, WHOSE ACTIONS WERE CONDONED by GOD Almighty, Stephanie

It's just not acceptable.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Royal Son said...

Osama, you are at it again:

"Isn't Mary believed to have been in a very similar age when she married Joseph? 11-14 YEARS OLD we are old."

First of all, noone knows what age Mary was married to Joseph at.

Secondly, there's a big difference between Mary marrying Joseph at 14, and Mohammed having SEX with Aisha at the age of 9.

Tell us Osama, what your opinion would be of a man who would take your daughter at 6 years of age for marriage, and have sex with her at the age of 9?

Tell us that it wouldn't bother you. Let's see what kind of Father you'd be.

Osama Abdallah said...

Royal Son,

What difference does it make if Mary was 11 or 14? We are told she was 11-14 when she married 90-year old Joseph! The Bible is still filled with raping of virgin girls and slaughtering of non-virgin girls and also boys and men that GOD Almighty has ordered and condoned.

You see what I am talking about Stephanie? These are the type of Christians that just look too ludicrous to even consider taking seriously.

Royal Son, have you even read a single word of what I've written above? Have seen the Biblical verses that I gave to Fernando that COMMANDED PEDOPHELIA?

As to our Mother Aisha being 6 when she married our Prophet and 9 when he consummated his marriage with her, so would it have been easier for you if she was 11, around Mary's age when she married Joseph? Are those 2 years really killing you that much?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

And Royal Son,

When talking about Mary's marriage with Joseph, I won't accept any number except for 11, since your theologians estimate that she was 11 to 14. For you, I'll take the worst case scenario.

So now tell me, is 9 instead of 11 really the ultimate determination between defining someone a pedophile or not? 90-year old Joseph wasn't a pedophile for marrying 11-year old Mary?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

And for you Royal Son here is another worst case scenario:

Aisha was 9 years old and 11 months!

Mary just barely made 11 years old when she married 90-year old Joseph!


So now there is only 1 year and 1 month of difference between Mary and Aisha.

IS ONE LOUSY YEAR WHAT KILLING YOU ROYAL SON?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Stephanie said...

Mr. Abdallah,

I see the verses now (although I don't necessarily agree with the interpretations)--I don't know how I missed it earlier. Sorry about that!

Also, just to clarify, I do not attack or mock Islam for having prophets that engaged in sex with prepubescent girls. I higly disagree with any religion or worldview's view on the promotion of pedophilia. I don't just come from a Biblical standpoint; I'm pointing out a psychological and biological standpoint (which I elaborated on within another post).

I would also like to point out that in the Old Testament, it was more likely that men married younger ladies (be it a polygamous or monogamous relationship) because the female population was scarce. God wanted mankind to "be fruitful and multiply"; man started out with only Adam and Eve, after all. So I think--though no one can be 100% sure--that is why girls were marrying younger and more women were "assigned" to more men. When the world was populated, there was no need for polygamy or marrying young (again, if there was an abundance of youthful marriages). But again, the Bible doesn't elaborate, so we can only theorize.

If you could give me verses on men of the Bible marrying prepubescent girls, I'd like to see them. I'm not so apt to accept the age estimation you gave for Mary and Joseph, however, as I don't see any Biblical evidence. I'm assuming these are the conjectures of scholars? I'm also not so sure that the Bible mentions the ages of people specifically (and if there are multiple mentions, it's probably an estimation; we can assume clean, rounded numbers aren't the true, specific ages, but a generalization). Thanks for your kind welcome and response.

God bless,
Stephanie

Osama Abdallah said...

Dear Stephanie,

Let us just agree that we disagree. I am not sure if I'll ever make my point clear to any Christian. So the countless verses in the Old Testament, that are direct Commands from GOD Almighty (so they are condoned in other words), to slaughter 100s of thousands of innocent people and to RAPE ALL OF THE VIRGIN GIRLS, which the Jewish Talmud by the way says were as young as 3 years old (see link below), doesn't mean a thing to you, and Prophet Muhammad marrying a 9-year old girl is the end of the world to you?

I mean really, what type of integrity, ethics and morals do you guys have? I am honestly not trying to insult! The Old Testament, Stephanie can be easily compared to NAZI GERMANY'S HOLOCAUST AND MASSACURES. You know that. I know you do! So why is...???? I don't know.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm

David Wood said...

Osama,

You were previously banned for (1) being deceptive, (2) being outrageously insulting, and (3) constantly linking to a site infested with computer viruses.

I allowed you to comment today because you started off being quite reasonable. However, you're rapidly returning to your bad habits. This is your warning.

As for Aisha and Mary, you're not making sense. We say that we find it appalling that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl. You say that Mary may have been eleven. Thus, you're trying to show that we're being inconsistent in our beliefs. But we're not being inconsistent if we don't believe that Mary was nine years old. You can say that some person at some point has suggested that Mary may have been eleven. But this is pure speculation and has nothing to do with whether we're being inconsistent. Indeed, I doubt any Christian on this blog believes that Mary was as young as eleven years old. I believe that she was probably around fourteen years old. Notice the difference. Nine-year-old girls typically haven't even started puberty. Fourteen-year-old girls are typically finishing puberty. Apart from this, in Islam, it isn't some random person having sex with a young girl. It's the exemplar--the man everyone is supposed to follow. Who's the man you're accusing of marrying a young girl in the Bible? Joseph. As far as Christian doctrine is concerned, it wouldn't matter if Joseph had been an axe-murderer. Joseph didn't deliver any of our texts or doctrines, and no one is told to immitate the life of Joseph. You're therefore comparing apples and oranges.

So are we being inconsistent? Not at all. Thus, you have to misrepresent the facts in order to rescue Muhammad, just as you must do in misrepresenting the Old Testament in order to try to rescue the Qur'an.

I should note, of course, that you're free to misrepresent the Old Testament and to make it as horrific as you desire. You should note, however, that when you condemn the Old Testament, you condemn Muhammad. Muhammad, as you know, put his hand on a copy of the Torah, and he swore that it's the word of God. So feel free to condemn, my friend. It's Muhammad you're attacking. (And we're inconsistent?)

Semper Paratus said...

Osama,

The passage you cited from Numbers doesn't say anything about killing INNOCENT boys, neither does it say to spare the virgin girls SO THAT they might be raped or even married off. It also doesn't say that Moses engaged in Pedophilia or took any of the girls, young or old, to himself.

The background of Numbers 31 is found in Numbers 25. The women of Moab are used to seduce the children of Israel away from the Lord and to the service of Baal Peor, a false god.

In response, God first judged Israel, by sending a plague upon her for her harlotry (through which she was joined to Baal Peor). Next, the Lord commanded Moses and Israel to execute His wrath upon the Moabites for their scheme, ordering them to kill everyone who was complicit or otherwise culpable in the affair. In other words, the Israelites were ordered to kill everyone except for the virgin girls, BECAUSE, as is now evident from the context, the virgin girls were not guilty in the matter of seducing the Israelites away from the LORD.

This is further brought out by the fact that when the Israelites tried to keep all the women alive, Moses said: "Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD."

More could be said, but that should get you started along the path of seeing that matter more clearly.

El-Cid said...

Osama said: "...we have a NOBLE QURAN RULE THAT SAYS: "The unlawful is permitted in exceptional cases." ... So yes, the girls should've been rescured! The guards were too ignorant and ridiculous."

Osama I have to agree with you 100% on this point [and also point out, that is a phrase I never thought I would type :-P].

Anyone with even a basic level of scholarship on Islam knows that there must be exception to the rules [i.e. taking needed medicine even if it contains alcohol, eating haram food rather than starving, etc, etc].

On this particular point, I am reminded of the Biblical teaching to uphold the "spirit of the law" rather than the "letter". After all, the law is made for the benefit of man, rather than man for the benefit of the law.

Semper Paratus said...

Osama,

I am familiar with the point that El-Cid brought up from the Bible about the spirit of the law, but I do not recall where the Qur'an provides the rule you mentioned.

Perhaps you were only paraphrasing or something, but nothing comes to mind. Could you point me to where that rule is to be found? Thanks.

David Wood said...

Yes, I'd also like to see the reference for this claim.

Stephanie said...

Mr. Abdallah,

Sorry for my late reply, I got caught up in school work. Actually I hadn't realized that Muhammad married a 9-year-old girl, but I'm assuming that's the Aisha that's been talked about?

Anything I had planned on saying is pretty much inferior (or a generalized argument thereof) compared to the replies that followed your response. I'm not a scholar, nor do I profess to be; but after reading some of the arguments on your website, I did notice a couple things taken out of context, such as Psalm 137:8-9. I read the verses that preceded and followed that reference and found that (in accordance to certain scholars):

1) David, a man of war, wrote this as a curse that would occur, not necessarily what he wanted to occur.

2) This verse does, in no way, tell us to go out and dash our enemies' infants against rocks and whatnot. So it does not condone that violence. It's sort of like a newspaper reporting horrid occurrences, while not supporting them. (But I'm not so great at analogies.)

I was going to say something similar to what Semper Paratus said about the article on Numbers. These aren't exactly cut-and-dry arguments--they're more like a "reading inbetween the lines" approach, which isn't always (if ever) accurate.

I think comparing the Old Testament to the Holocaust is truly overreaching and inaccurate. I really can't see how the two can be compared--unless you can elaborate, I adamantly disagree with that particular correlation. But thanks again for providing your take on this.

Regards and God bless,
Stephanie

Taylor said...

Many thanks for all the comments. We are forgetting that Muhammad was 54 years old when he consummated the marriage with 9 year old Aisha.

45 years older!

According to the Quran, Muhammad is supposed to be an example of good conduct for humanity.

A Muslim is supposed to follow Muhammad's example. This is why the age for marriage for females has been lowered to 9 in Iran.

In all honesty, this is deeply disturbing.

A Muslim would have to, based on Muhammad's example, find it acceptable at the age of 54 to marry a 9 year old.

Osama, Do you find this acceptable? Would you be okay with marrying a nine year old when you are 54 years old? I'm not asking if you WOULD do it but if you FIND IT ACCEPTABLE.

Taylor said...

Osama, Thanks for your response: "The unlawful is permitted in exceptional cases."

What do you then make of Muhammad's siege at Ta'if? There he allowed for the killing of innocents since the catapults which were used did not discriminate between male warriors and women and children.

Also, Muhammad allowed for the killing of innocents at the expedition to Banu al-Nadir, since his order for the burning of trees also made no discrimination.

[By the way, There doesn't appear to be a difference between burning trees and cutting them down.]

The two events are well known in Muhammad's biography, but here are the sources nonetheless: Nasa'i's Sunan, Tirmidhi's Sunan, Abu Dawud's al-Marasil, and Ibn Hanbal's Musnad.

ubiquitouserendipity said...

hello brother dr. nabeel. i'm not always full of energy, but i will respond to your request to share my testimony in the next day or two. i'm certainly no big deal, but how G d can change a man is what is the real issue in knowing the One True and Living HASHEM Adonai. so i'll be back and around, and will share my little corner of the world.

for now though, brothers and sisters, please go see this video if you have a strong stomach. this is the last few moments of a young man's life, just before and including his stoning. there is no context, other than visual identification of manner of dress, so i am making no claims regarding the participants. odd though,,, there is something almost de ja vous-esque about the setting and manner of dress of the participants. again, i'm just saying...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCNEUGzDyWQ&feature=channel_page

be blessed in Him folks. Peace

Fernando said...

Ousama's top unconsubstitiated, insulting and erronous assertions (3-4 February 2009):

1) «and mistreatment of captives is forbidden in Islam as I have demonstrated»... no you haven't... saying "the window is closed aexcet for that two inshes...", is not saying "the window is closes", butt rather "the window is open"...

2) «How is Moses also not a pedophile?»... Well... juste bye understanding the text you presented and not amputating it, or inserting words in it...

3) «the slaughter of non-virgin girls and also boys and men happened on a large scale to 100s of thousands of people in the Bible. And yes, Stephanie, these actions were condoned by GOD Almighty»... No it's nott... your knowlegde ofe the dovtrine of Biblical inspiration iss awfull...

4) «Mary married 90-year old Joseph»... Where'is it said?...

5) «Have seen the Biblical verses that I gave to Fernando that COMMANDED PEDOPHELIA?»... No Ousama... the precise verses you posted DO NOT command pedophelia as I clearly demonstradted and other blogers also explained to you...

6) «100's of verses in the OT that are direct Commands from GOD Almighty (so they are condoned in other words)»...No it's nott... your knowlegde ofe the dovtrine of Biblical inspiration iss awfull...

7) «RAPE ALL OF THE VIRGIN GIRLS, which the Jewish Talmud by the way says were as young as 3 years old»...Where's it said the virgin girls were rapped?... Where? And bie reffering to the Talmud you're mixing, with all respect, "pennis" with "tennis"...

8) «The Old Testament, Stephanie can be easily compared to NAZI GERMANY'S HOLOCAUST AND MASSACURES»Ousama... are you calling us all who respect the OT, like Muhammad did putting his hande on the Torah, Nazis? Nowhere I felt so insultted in manie years... islam is the onlie human movement in the world that can be compared -- due to it's supremacist and belicous ideologie supported bie the qur'an and Muhammad's life and wordes -- with Nazism...

So Ousama... I hope you know realizze how fare you're from the truth... I gess you'll need a lot more supporte from your wiffe to correct all these statements thate are also in your site...

but then... this is in clear connection off the title of this entry: "misinterpretation" = muslim core apology and theologie... Shamefull...

Stephanie... bery glad to see you around here... but be carefull... Ousama's site is full of threats...

finalie: POusama... our prayers are on you, and now that you mentioned her (who is working so hard to supporte you in youre worke... does she know you're so misitreprating everything? would she continue to support you when she realizes how far you're fromm the truth?), on your wiffe also... our God, Jesus, as we all, trullie loves you both...

Fernando

p.s.: Ousama: scientific miracles in the qur'an are the wekest link in muslim's apologie... are you, relly, connected with the false doctrines of Muhhamad (ore Uthman's corruption of them...), onlie with the thin rope off such an awfull bunch of pseudo-scientific miracles? The numerical miracle as alredie been demonstrated to be a mountain of ilusion... could you presente, here, more of them? We could do you a greatt goog bie helpping you to see the falsitye of themm... in the meanwhile you can visit
http://www.islam-watch.org/Amarkhan/Miracles-of-Quran-Exposed.htm

Royal Son said...

David: Thank you sir for having a lot more patience in explaining things to Osama than I.

I was waiting to see if he was going to peddle the 90 year old Joseph story again.

I have taken the time to point out that the very source from which Osama pulls the relevant quote completely obliterates Osama's argument, stating that such sayings were apocryphal stories, dreams, contrary to all probability and completely void of any authority whatsoever.

I agree with you David, that Mary would much more likely have married at the age of 14. However, Osama wants to say 11. He is in a quagmire, because absolutely NO authoritative source backs up his claim.

David, you have debated Mr. Abdallah in the past. Without intending to be rude, would you suggest that he is perhaps incapable of rational discourse? It seems that either he cannot read, or he just doesn't want to try to understand the truth. I am not sure who he is trying to impress in his posts, but I am rather appalled by his lack of ability to grasp the most basic of literary commentary and argumentation.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

I feel a post coming on - "The Muslim Apologists' Use of a 90 year-old Joseph"...

Fernando said...

Yep... It would be greatt!!! Whith this crises, all off us who can't be supported bie our wifes, woulde be bery happie to habe another shot to such a foonie argument...

Osama Abdallah said...

David Wood,

You said:

"You were previously banned for (1) being deceptive, (2) being outrageously insulting, and (3) constantly linking to a site infested with computer viruses."

You know well that all of your three points are straight out lies. I was never deceptive, nor did I outrageously insult anyone, other than those who insulted my beloved Prophet and Cherished Religion, and my site doesn't contain viruses.

To the rest, your desperation my friends is quite clear. You are only fooling and deceiving yoursleves. You know what, I will go ahead and drop the Mary being 11 years old (according to your own sources by the way) point, and stick only to the Biblical verses that I provided and the 10s (tens) of others that I haven't provided here:

"They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man........Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:7,17-18)"

Mr. Wood says that he is appalled that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married a 9-year old girl. Ok, fair enough. Will David Wood now be honest enough to tell us that he is also appalled for the terrorism and massacures, and the raping of virgin girls in the Bible? Or will David Wood prove to us here that he is a liar, even lying to himself?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Semper,

Here is what the Noble Quran Says about the unlawful becomes permitted in the case of emergency:

[002:173] He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of God. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For God is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

[016:115] He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than God has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[002:286] On no soul doth God Place a burden greater than it can bear...

Also, the Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him, Said:

"Al-Daroorat Tubeeh al-Mahthoorat"

The cases of emergency permit the unlawful.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

Ousama... greate to see you backe...

since, you, ounce again, decided to go through that path of onlie repetting youre false statementes, eben when they ahbe been denonced and refutted, I'll, as a goog Christian that I ham, and in respect to the words of our God, Jesus («iff someone askes you to walke with him one mille, do him a flavour, and go with him another one...»), too will follow you:

About your quote of Numbers 31:7,17-18:

1) amputating some verses you try to implie that it was YHWH who spoke the latter words... it was not... it was Moses... and he did note justified them by the will og YHWH... and once again: Moses is not the paradigm to Christians who see in Jesus the New Moses...

More... this is a descriptive and historical passage, not, as you well knowe, a juridical or prescreptive one... it's not an example neither to Christians, nor to jews...

Yes... Moses ordered the kill of "zakar ba-ttap"... young boys (nott exactly children -- one is a young boy until he becames a youbg male adult --... and clearly note innocent as you, whith some malicious intencion I recon, interpolled in the text...)...

But nowhere Numbers 31:7,18 reveals anything of pedophilic attitude... "ha-ttap Bannashim" means young girls -- and one is a young girl until he becames a youbg adult woman --... not, as you, now, truly admits, not interpolling wordes eben when the word, ttap, is the same as before...

But eben if this was not the case (but it is...) nowhere in Numbers 31:7,18 is saide (as you want to implye by your words...)

a) they killed them;
b) or eben they raped them...

its is said that they could take the girls who were not the cause of infidility towards YHWH (Numbers 31,16) by theire possetion as, one can cleraly read bie the words "asher hahayu": take theires life as yours... this is: respect them as you respect your lifes...


Ousama: ounce again: if you want to say anything about the Holie Bible, please make sure you know what you're talking about... and please: presente here more verses from the hundreds you say you habe in support of your thesis... It would be a great thing...

Nakdimon said...

"I was never deceptive, nor did I outrageously insult anyone, other than those who insulted my beloved Prophet and Cherished Religion, and my site doesn't contain viruses."

What?? What planet? What solar system? What reality? I know that we can argue about you not being insulting or deceptive, but to claim that ur site doesnt contain virusses? When I try to visit ur site I get all kinds of alerts that the site contains errors. I visit hundreds of sites each week and the only site that I get virus alerts on is your site! And I'm not the only one who gets those alerts. Are you actually saying that my firewall LIES?

Osama Abdallah said...

Fernando,

You said: "But nowhere Numbers 31:7,18 reveals anything of pedophilic attitude... "

First of all, I am not amputating any verses. I just shortened them to make it easier to read. Please post all of the verses that supposedly prove me a liar. You are the liar because you haven't given us anything except for CHEAP REMARKS.

Furthermore, you are obviously too desperate and too deceptive. Not only there was pedophilia done to the girls, BUT MASS KILLING AND TERRORISM! So the terrorism doesn't bother you, but Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, marrying a 9-year old girl bothers you?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Nakdimon said...

of course when I wrote "errors" I meant "virusses".

Nakdimon said...

"So the terrorism doesn't bother you, but Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, marrying a 9-year old girl bothers you?"

Osama, the same can be said about you: So marrying an 11-year old (according to you, not according to the facts) is immoral, but marrying a 6 year old and having sex with her at the age of 9 is perfectly acceptable?

Osama Abdallah said...

I never said that Nakdimon.

Osama Abdallah said...

Semper and David Wood,

You made a request and I responded to it. But my response got burried. Here it is again:

Here is what the Noble Quran Says about the unlawful becomes permitted in the case of emergency:

[002:173] He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of God. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For God is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

[016:115] He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than God has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[002:286] On no soul doth God Place a burden greater than it can bear...

Also, the Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him, Said:

"Al-Daroorat Tubeeh al-Mahthoorat"

The cases of emergency permit the unlawful.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Taylor said...

Osama. Will you kindly answer my two questions. I am very interested to hear your responses.

1. Would you be okay with marrying a nine year old when you are 54 years old? I'm not asking if you WOULD do it but if you FIND IT ACCEPTABLE.

2. Do you acknowledge that Muhammad allowed for the killing of innocents at the siege of Ta`if (by using catapults) and against Banu al-Nadir (by burning their trees)?

Taylor said...

Also, how was it a "forced necessity" for Muhammad kill women and children in this hadith?

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

For the raid to Waddan, Muhammad in fact was on the offensive, searching out and initiating the attack against the pagans.

Many thanks for your consideration and time.

Fernando said...

No Ousama... what, by your starndard, and muslims standars, (just like jehowas witnesses do...), whate you did might be just shortened them to make it easier to read (which... bie the way, was neber a concern for you before...) in YOUR perspective, is to everyone else an attempt of manipulating your readers forcingue them to take the same false conclusions you did... that, Ousama, is called "lying"...

More: you insertede (once again as jehowas witnesses do...) words in the text in order, once againe, to manipulate it... that, ounce agian, is called "lying..."

Do you want a list of these action of youres? Ok: I'll put theire number them in black tags in the text you presented, gibing an explanaition of whie they're a lie:

"They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man........ (#1 lie: attempting, bie amputating verses from Numbers 31:7 to 31:16, to say the next words are a comand from YHWH... they're not...) Now kill all the boys [innocent kids] (#2 lie: putting words were they're not in the text: "boy" is not the same as "innocent kids"... and "ttap" is not de per se "child"...). And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:7,17-18)" (#3 lie: since this text of yours was to say the Bible condomns violence and pedophilia, you're attemptibg to say thies last portion of the text defendes that Moses sayd to rape young girls... that's false: they were girls and nowhere it's said about rapping... as I said: "asher hahayu" means: take theires life as yours... this is: respect them as you respect your lifes)...

I hope you«re happy Ousama... I'm always bery happie to help a fellow human being in his quest to truth...

Then Ousama, you saide: «You are the liar because you haven't given us anything except for CHEAP REMARKS»... I don't feel any pain due to the fact I know hebrew and greek, and are learnning arabick... What I said is what the text says, not what you want it to say... bie the way: other bloggres consubstantiated my interpretation of the text...

Then, you saide «Furthermore, you are obviously too desperate and too deceptive».... no Ousama... I'm calm as any person who lives in the truth can be... it's you who started this debate due to the fact I wrot "pb" insted of "of"...

And again you repeat yourself: «Not only there was pedophilia done to the girls, BUT MASS KILLING AND TERRORISM!»... Ousama... WHERE IS THERE WHAT YOU SAID?

Finalie you saide: «So the terrorism doesn't bother you, but Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, marrying a 9-year old girl bothers you?»... Any person marruing a 6 years old baby and having sex with her (oral, vaginal an anal...) with her would bother me... more if he's presented as the most perfect example of anyone religios (?!?)... Saying the truth is saying the truth...

And any act of terrorist is awfull (and where was there terrorism in teh Bible? and where was it ordered bie God? and where is it said one shoul continue to do so nowadays?), but there were always violence in the world.... the problem is if that violence persists nowhadays as it clearlie is the case with terrorit atacks made in the name of the religion Muhammad (or Uthman) created...


Ousama... tomorrow I'll be back... I hope these words wiull help you in your painfuul quest of the try«uth.... mye prayers for you and your wife are granted!!!

Osama Abdallah said...

Fernando,

Are you saying that:

1- Moses did what GOD Almighty didn't Command? That Moses was a terrorist and a murderer?

2- The Bible doesn't contain Commandments of GOD Almighty in it? That many of its Laws are man-made?


Furthermore, here are verses for you that are supposedly from GOD Almighty:

1 Samuel 15:2-4
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

Deuteronomy 20:16
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

Are these not GOD Almighty's direct Command Fernando?

But again, I am curious. You said that the Numbers verses that I gave weren't from GOD Almighty. So again, are you CHARGING MOSES WITH blasphemy here?? Was Moses doing evil on his own? And is the Bible corrupt and filled with man-made laws?

Furthermore, you are either ignorant OR A LIAR! Here is what the Numbers Verses say:

Numbers 31:17-30
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,

18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

19 "All of you who have killed anyone or touched anyone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days.....
......
25 The LORD said to Moses,
26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured.

27 Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community.
28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats.
29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORD's part.
30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD's tabernacle."

So Fernando, how are any of the verses that I gave you aren't DIRECT COMMANDS FROM GOD ALMIGHTY?

So now Fernando, are you going to eat back your words, or are you going to charge your Bible with terrorism, pedophelia and massacures?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

My dear Taylor,

You sound like another DESPERATE Christian who is DYING to find anything on Islam.


Aside form the verses that I gave to Fernando that show crystal-clear the ample pedophelia, terrorism and massacures in the Bible, that can be easily compared to NAZI GERMANY'S KILLINGS, I want you to please show me where did Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, give a direct order to kill any innocent soul?

The raid was important to put the infidels to defeat and finish them off once and for all. But again, where did the Prophet command the killing of any innocent person in this raid?

Furthermore, here is what Allah Almighty Said in the Holy Quran:

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"

Again, like I gave David Wood and Semper the proofs from the Holy Quran, ONLY IN EMERGENCIES were children and women ACCIDENTLY killing. Never did the Prophet give an order to kill any innocent person. I CHALLENGE YOU TO DISPROVE IT!

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

And to further prove it to you Taylor, Allah Almighty further Commanded the Muslims regarding the prisoners of war:

"They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day Whose evil flies far and wide. And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the CAPTIVE -- (Saying), 'We feed you For the sake of Allah alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.' (The Noble Quran, 76:7-9)"

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Stephanie said...

Mr. Abdallah,

You continuously cite Numbers as proof that the Bible encourages the rape of girls. But as we have seen repeatedly here, your assessment is incorrect. Your assumption from the way in which that sentence was worded was that these girls must have been saved for the men themselves so that they could rape them. But there's nothing to elaborate on this. So your interpretation is subjective and realistically unfounded.

When one comes to a solid conclusion, it is usually deeply researched in its original language, actual context, and the period in which it was written. Our meanings and biases today may be superimposed upon historical or Biblical texts; this is often the case as seen with secular historians. One common example that comes to mind is the word "gay." Decades ago, "gay" simply meant "blithe" or "happy." Today, it is used to refer to homosexual behavior. "Gay" still retains its original meaning, however it is not commonly used or referred to. The slang usage of the word has replaced it.

Furthermore, everyone must keep in mind that some things CAN'T be explained in this life. What appears to be "inconsistencies" in the Bible are usually just statements that aren't elaborated on. This is usually where misconceptions about particular verse come into play. I like to use the example of historians who approach Roman history. They have theorized endlessly on how exactly the Roman Empire fell; however, note how they do not claim ultimate validity in their theories! They know and understand that they can never know for sure how Rome fell exactly. Their theories sound like good, fitting explanations, but that doesn't mean they're right.

Also, I'm not sure if you realize that relating stories of the Old Testament doesn't mean that we should follow their examples. There is a difference between God commanding His people (TODAY, not what He, in the past, ordered certain individuals within specific situations that would not be common today) to do certain tasks and relaying what God told His people at the time being (BEFORE the time of Christ, might I add). I'm sure you can see similar instances within the Quran. Please keep in mind that if you are going to approach the Christian texts, you should do it in a way that Christian scholars would. Otherwise, I guarantee your arguments will be discredited and go unheard.

Osama Abdallah said...

Mrs. Stephanie,

The whole point of this argument was to show the Christians on this board that:

1- Their attacks on Islam using murders are debunked.

2- Their attacks on Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being a pedophile are also debunked.


Now as to the girls were not raped, I am sorry, but your argument is really far too desperate. They certainly didn't take those virgin girls for decoration of the house, did they?

The verses specifically say that the girls have had to be untouched by any man, i.e., virgins. Obviously, virginity was crucial, and it would've only been crucial for sexual purposes.

Where am I going wrong?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Moi said...

Osama… your lack of understanding of the most basic aspects of biblical theology and hermeneutics, due, for sure, to your lack of understanding that the Christian perspective of the procedures of God’s revelation (an intrinsic one which respected the freedom, idiosyncrasies and every faculties of the hagiographer) is not the same as allah’s revelation (an extrinsic, imposed, disrespectful one that obliterates freedom and intelligence in the channel -- Muhammad or Uthmans? -- he supposedly used)…

In other words, so even someone with a three years old mentality can grasp these things: if the qur’an says: «allah said: “bla, bla, bla…”» one who accepts islam as a true religion MUST admit these are allah’s literal words… on the other hand, if the Holy Blible says: «God said: “bla, bla, bla”» someone who accepts Christianity as the true religion it is, must understand that those words are simultaneously God’s words and the hagiographer’s ones…

more simply: they’re God’s words filtered by the heart and soul of the hagiographer… So in order to understand these words in their true meaning one must understand what is simply an interpretation from the hagiographer (with more or less personal data in them…), and what is clearly an assertion from God’s will…

and for that Osama, there’re rules of hermeneutics, and exegesis… more: the core hermeneutic of the Bible is the Word of God – as the qur’an itself acknowledges him as such --: Jesus Christ… every text must be read at the light of the words and deeds of him…

I’m not responding for Fernando, for whom I have the greatest respect as a great and generous human being he his with all the attempts he his doing in trying to help you (Osama), but I guess what he was trying to say was that:

a) a person, and a holy one, can do something without it being a consequence of a thematic expression of God’s will… the fact I’m writing these words are not due to an order I received from God, even if I clearly believe I’m doing this with a pure heart… in the present case being debated by you and Fernando, nowhere it’s said that the orders Moses gave in Numbers 31:7.16ff were a direct order from God…

could you prove me wrong? Perhaps as you did previously when debating me on Songs of Songs 8:1-3 (ah… since you don’t seam to understand irony, I must say you did not such thing…)…

Even in the Bible we can find examples of holy people who do terrible things (David sending Urias to the front row in the battle…), but you can’t say they were following God’s will… and when they realized what they did they repented…

the fact the Bible says: «A did B», does not grant the possibility to deduct that B was made by A due to a direct will from God… and that’s so even when he might have thought so…

So: in childish words that can be understood by you Osama: the actions in Numbers 31:7.16ff cannot be understood as a direct expression of God’s will since they’re in clear contrast of more important and decisive texts who show God’s will in a more transparent way due to their consonance to Jesus Christ…

Moses is not, for any Christian, the model for our existence… we don’t follow Moses, but Christ, the New and decisive Law giver to mankind… So: even when someone calls Moses a murderer -- he that killed someone with is bare hands -- that is not a problem to us Christians since we read the OT at the light of the NT, at the light of the Word of God, Jesus the Christ…

everything Moses did, and said, without saying it was God’s will is not to be imitated by any means: it’s just a simple historical fact that must be understood in it’s specific context… and even what he said that was God’s will must be put in contrast to Jesus life and words…

b) yes, Osama, the Bible contains commandments of the true God… all the direct commandments in the Bible are, when understood in the context I explained to you (and here I apologize to all of you who clearly see in them a deficit of scholarly argumentation, but when dealing with Osama I feel the necessity to imagine what my 3 years old daughter could understand…) from God…

But all of them, exception being made to the “ipsissima verba” from Christ that were preserved in the NT, were communicated to all humanity by human channels… and they must be understood in that perspective, grasping the notion of an hierarchy in them that has it’s highest vertex in Jesus Christ…

So… shall we continue Osama? Prepared for another tough ride? Grasp, if you will, an Alka Seltzer, and follow the path to the truth…

1) 1Sam. 15:2-4… Osama… even the text says that these words are what Samuel understood to be God’s will… but then… let’s try to explain these things to you in another way: due to the nature of His revelation God’s adapts and limits himself to the ability of it’s interlocutors…

He did not said, from the beginning, that He was Trinity (even when he left enough evidences of it all over the place…), but gradually left, as Fernando is doing with you Osama (and me following his example…), the humanity to mature until He could reveal himself as such… so: was there a killing of people who acted, with repeated contumacy, against this path of revelation of God? Yes there was… Was it directly ordered by God? No it was not…

But then: is anyone saying that Samuel, or the words he understood in his heart to be from God, is the example to Christians nowadays (as it’s the appalling case with the words and deeds of Muhamamd…)? So… the fact that an historical event narrated by the hagiographer who said that Samuel thought that something was God’s will, that does not imply a prescriptive nature to anyone… Prescriptive are only the core commandments that were not revaluated by Jesus Christ…

2) Osama… why do you continuously want to make you look like someone who doesn’t understand anything about the Holy Bible, its formation and internal hermeneutics?

Who’s speaking in Deuteronomy 20:16? Could you see for your own? A truth discovered if 1000 times more easily to understand than if it was given…

Are these words directed from God?

No they’re not… They were not invented, but they were a unique and transitory precept that, even in the OT, was read at the light of the core 10 commandments…

So, I guess Fernando would say they’re not God’s direct commands… but, after what I explained, even you, Osama, can understand that…

Osama… about the debate you had with Fernando in respect with Numbers 31:7.16-17 I have to be quite vigorous with you Osama (but take these words as a father who’s trying to educate his loved son…):

1) Osama… Numbers 31:16-17 are Moses’ words… not YHWH’s words…

2) Osama… the fact that, in Numbers 31:25ff, YHWH, in the words of the hagiographer, ordered a count to the debris of the war, does not imply the words in Numbers 31:16-17 was from YHWH

if I say to my daughter: go out there and do not allow that spider to come into the house, and she, believing that I was ordering her to kill the poor spider, goes there and kills it; when she, later, with all sincerity, would say I ordered it, I didn’t… one day, when she grows up loving my values, she will understand the most authentic interpretation of my words…

more: even when, after she killed the poor spider, I told her to put it’s corpse in the grass, no one, with an adult mind, would say I ordered that killing…

So Osama… the fact is that in Numbers 31:16-17 is Moses who’s speaking… not YHWH… was that YHWH’s will? In order to answer this question we, as I explained before, must ask: what would Jesus (my daughter when she’ll grow up…) do/say? One must admit that Moses (my daughter with hers present 3 years…) could believe so, and acted in accordance to that, but YHWH’s profound will is not to kill anyone, but that everyone should live and know Him as the only true God that was perfectly revealed by Jesus, specially in the Cross…

Do you imagine what God must be “suffering” when, after revealing his perfect being an perfect will, 600 years later a pseudo-prophet (Muhammad or Uthman) made 1000 times worse actions and words that were presented by him (Muhammad or Uthman) to be the perfect example of his will?

Moi d’Alembert…

p.s.: once again: I apologize to all of you who clearly see in them a deficit of scholarly argumentation, but when dealing with Osama I feel the necessity to imagine what my 3 years old daughter could understand… but I do feel this is quite an accurate explanation of these things… any true correction would be accepted (even from you Osama… but since you don’t know how many Johns are there in the Holy Bible, I guess you’ll just repeat words and posts who’ll continuously expressing your lack of understanding of the Bible…)

p.p.s.: Fernando… I’ll be expecting your own words in this subject…

Alforreca said...

Osama: are you fool, or just pretending? (I’m just asking…)

You said: «The verses specifically say that the girls have had to be untouched by any man, i.e., virgins. Obviously, virginity was crucial, and it would've only been crucial for sexual purposes.»

The fact they had to take care of the virgin girls was because they had not been the cause of infidelity towards YHWH (Numbers 31,16)...

Are you blind? They were taken in order to be protected... Are you implying that when a muslim adopts a child it's only to have sex with them? it's what your own logic implies... or perhaps that's only your mind and heart speaking... So… are you fool, or just pretending? Now we all know the answer…

Osama Abdallah said...

Moi,

You said: "more: the core hermeneutic of the Bible is the Word of God – as the qur’an itself acknowledges him as such..."

That is false. The Holy Quran Says that the Jews and Christians had corrupted their books, and the Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also testify for this. You can visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm to see the quotes that I provided from our Books.

As to the rest of your lengthy post, if you read only the BOLDED PARTS OF THE VERSES that I gave, you would've saved us this lengthy post, because I only quoted the verses that were supposedly DIRECT COMMANDS FROM GOD ALMIGHTY in your book.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Alforreca,

We are now talking about adoption???? :-). Wow!! You magically turned the massecures and killing of even the INFANTS AND SUCKLINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! into charity?

This is what I am talking about when I say Christians are self-contradicting and desperate.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Stephanie said...

Mr. Abdallah,

I don't see my argument as being desperate; I think it has just as much validity as your own. You confirmed my previous assessment when you said in this recent post:

"They certainly didn't take those virgin girls for decoration of the house, did they?

The verses specifically say that the girls have had to be untouched by any man, i.e., virgins. Obviously, virginity was crucial, and it would've only been crucial for sexual purposes."


Sure we can assume that, but again we can't know for sure. Whether or not the explanation seems to fit, your depiction and my depiction are equally valid. Why? Because it really can't be proved or disproved either way. I'm just saying that these concepts can't be presented as facts because of the lack of evidence.

(By the way, you can call me just Stephanie if you like. No need to be formal! Being younger, I usually refer to people as Mr, Ms, Mrs, Dr, etc. It's sort of my way of showing respect, really.)

Regards and God bless,
Stephanie

Royal Son said...

Osama, according to your Qur'an, did Allah kill women and children in the flood at Noah's time?

Fernando said...

Osama: ounce again:

1) Numbers 31:16-17 is not YHWH speaking... why do you continue to runn instead of admitting, as any normal and decent person would do, that you were wrongg?...

2) the qur'an and the hadiths cann sai anything they want... thei've no relevance to this matter... dispite that we have plenty off proff that the Bible was not corrupted... but on the other hand, the qur'an and the hadiths, themsellfes, are a compilation that was corrupted by Uthmann (you know thate...) in order to defend his own narcisism and his own political interests in agreement with miss Ayesha and a non inspired bunch of pseudo-histories created and invented, many off themme, centuries after the events they supposedly refer to... but you can post here ebery text from the Bible you wantt in order to prove it was corrupted... please be free to do so... I'll prove you wrong in every onne... It's a public gautlet!!!

3) I agree with Moi in almost eberiding he said... and ounce again it's you who doesn't understand what peoplle are saying: Moi (thanks for your kind wordes...) when said :«"more: the core hermeneutic of the Bible is the Word of God – as the qur’an itself acknowledges him as such..."
»
was referring to what you, ounce agin, malliciously, amputatted: «Jesus Christ…»...

Moi, as eberione can see, is saying that the qur'an (and I know at leastt 3 passages...) admits thatt Jesus is the Word of God...

Saying you quoted what you want iscontitinous irrelevant: the original debate between us, in which Moi interveened (and I don't agree in everything he said...), was if Numbers 31:16-17 was an directt order from Godd... eberyone agreed it was not... and so wat: what does Numbers 31:25-26 say about YHWH said? Only to count the spoils... what was your attempt when used that tto say I was a lyier when I said Numbers 31:16-17 was not the words of YHWH... the only reason I see to you to present them in the movement of our debate was to say that Numbers 31:16-17 was YHWH speaking or that it was done in order to comply to an order from YHWH... both are false...

So... Ousama... do you understand a litle bit more of how the Bible must be read?

About what Alforreca said: thatt's not an interpretation: itt's whate the texte says... and you know that the Bible say that, in ANY circounstances, if someone raped a girl he had to marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives»)... butt even that's not the case with this text: the words "asher hahayu" (Ousama... once again: I dont fell sorrow to know hebrew...) clearly says so "take theirs lifes"... no take theirs bodies... yes the men had to take the girls with them... would they, latter, adopt, marry, keep them as slaves? Perhaps all off these thingues as this was a typical practise in the all ancient worlde... but see Deuteromie 21:10-14...

So Ousama: all the texts you bpresented here in order to say one thing baceme the most sharpen instrument to prove yhey clearly said the opposite you tried to say... haw sad this is...

I'll pray eben arder for you and your poor wife!!!

El-Cid said...

Semper said: "I am familiar with the point that El-Cid brought up from the Bible about the spirit of the law, but I do not recall where the Qur'an provides the rule you mentioned."

Semper, the point about being able to set aside certain Islamic rules (i.e. taking medicine that contains haram materials) was something that came up in a discussion I had with a Muslim doctor. He pointed me to a website that had discussions on this matter, but I have long since lost the links.

In retrospect, I don't recall the ruling on this as coming primarily from the Quran, rather I believe it came from the Hadith (and then a case was made that it doesn't 'contradict' the Quran, so it is valid). If I can find the link I will post it.

That being said, Osama's statement "we have a Noble Quran rule...." may not be entirely accurate. In my mind I read it as "we have an Islamic ruling..." (ah, the importance of details).

El-Cid said...

Alforecca said:

"You [Osama] said: «The verses specifically say that the girls have had to be untouched by any man, i.e., virgins. Obviously, virginity was crucial, and it would've only been crucial for sexual purposes.»

[Alforecca responds]
The fact they had to take care of the virgin girls was because they had not been the cause of infidelity towards YHWH (Numbers 31,16)...
Are you blind? They were taken in order to be protected... Are you implying that when a muslim adopts a child it's only to have sex with them? it's what your own logic implies... or perhaps that's only your mind and heart speaking... So… are you fool, or just pretending? Now we all know the answer…"

Osama then replied: "We are now talking about adoption???? :-). Wow!! You magically turned the massecures and killing of even the INFANTS AND SUCKLINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! into charity? This is what I am talking about when I say Christians are self-contradicting and desperate."

El-Cid comments:

Osama, cut the crap with the slight-of-hand and misdirection. Anyone who is at least half awake can see the misrepresentation you just attempted.

Alforecca responded directly to your charge (as did Semper Paratus).

The really amazingly ironic thing in this case is, that it is in fact YOU that is bringing in wildly off-topic issues! The whole reason we are even having this discussion about that passage from Numbers is because you just brought it up out of nowhere.

In psychology, what you are doing is known as 'projective identification' Osama.

Taylor said...

Osama, you said,
"The raid was important to put the infidels to defeat and finish them off once and for all."

You have just justified offensive warfare. In today's terms, you have just justified Bush's invasion of Iraq. Why? The raid to Waddan occurred after the hijra. At this time, the Meccan enemy left Muhammad alone in peace in Medina. Muhammad WENT OUT IN SEARCH of the Meccan enemy.

You said, "But again, where did the Prophet command the killing of any innocent person in this raid?"

Muhammad made no effort in his offensive to safeguard the pagan women and children. In the hadith, Muhammad's followers are the ones who are concerned about the potential deaths of women and children. But Muhammad informs them not to be concerned, because "they (the women and children) are from them (the pagan enemy)."

Also I think you forgot to answer this very important question:

1. Would you be okay with marrying a nine year old when you are 54 years old? I'm not asking if you WOULD do it but if you FIND IT ACCEPTABLE.

Many thanks brother and God bless you and your loved ones.

Taylor said...

I wrote: "In today's terms, you have just justified Bush's invasion of Iraq."

Actually, there is a better analogy. You have just justified the Crusades.

Inasmuch as the Crusades were an attempt to win back the Holy Land (which belonged to the Christians before the Muslims overtook it), Muhammad's attack against the pagans was an attempt to take the offensive against those who had once taken the offensive (but had ceased after the hijra) against him.

Fernando said...

Taylor... goode pointes out there!!!

Taylor said...

Regarding the catapults at al-Ta`if and the burning of trees for the Banu al-Nadir, are you saying that the deaths of women and children were collateral damage?

If so, then you have justified Israeli strikes in Palestine in which Hamas leaders are targeted.

Semper Paratus said...

Osama,

Thanks for answering my question about certain things being permitted in extreme circumstances, even if they otherwise go against the Qur'an.

Given this, would you say the Satanic verses are an example of this? Did Muhammad acknowledge the validity of worshipping al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat because he found himself in extreme circustances, being surrouned by hostile pagans?

Royal Son said...

I wonder if they were inspired by Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 259:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."

Proud human said...

I dont know why are you taking Osama seriously?

A sleeping person may be awaken but that person who isn't sleeping and pretending to have fallen asleep cannot be awakened.
- Sage Aristotle

Similarly, that person who wants to learn something can be educated but that person who only pretends to be eager to learn (but wants to stay stubborn and arrogant) cannot be educated.

Now, coming to Osama case, if you carefully examine his rubbish argument, you will notice that he uses TU - QUOQUE logical fallacy.

When Fernando quoted Islam as dreadfull and used "pd" instead of "of", that Osama used his own assumption and insulted Bible rather than defending his prophet. Further, if we go by standard keyboard structure,we can find P is to the rightward of O and D is to the leftward of F. So, you can mistype "OF" as "PD". If you do not proofread properly, this error may go unnoticed. But Osama won't take this into consideration owing to his false prejudice.

There are many noble verses in Bible which muslims are afraid to quote:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
-Ephesians 6 12
KJV

The real problem with Islam is that it is religion of deception (Al-Taqiyya). You can read Ibn Kathir's commentary on Quran 3:28 and Abu Darda to know that in detail. Because of this reason, Islam cannot be defended logically.

You cannot defeat Islam with patience. Reason for that is already mentioned above in the very beginning. Probably his every statement has 2 - 3 logical fallacies. So, just expose his fallacies and leave him on his path.